I don't know. Tucker just interviewed him and that's about it.Tucker may simply have a little 'man crush' on Tate which somewhat blinded him. No big deal imo.
Can we talk about Andrew Tate
- Thread starter Andi
- Start date
Jo Bugman
Jedi
Good catch, I just watched a documentary about that cult on HBO. Worth a viewing imo.Can't help but wonder if Tate was inspired by NXIVM sex cult leader, Keith Raniere:
Nxivm Branding Was Scripted by Sex Cult Leader to Be ‘Like a Sacrifice’ (Published 2019)
Keith Raniere helped design the ritual, according to recordings introduced during his federal trial. Women should be “completely nude,” he suggested, and held to the table.www.nytimes.com
I guess searing would be a little too obvious so tatooing a much better course of action.
Regarding Tucker, from the time he first brought up Tate on his former Fox show to this latest interview, I do find it hard to believe that no one clued him in about Tate's true character, if you can call it that. Was he just too fixated on Tate's promotion/defense of masculinity? Surely by now he's been apprised and shown video evidence that this guy is a disgusting, lying pimp! And why would anyone be interested in a lying pimp's opinions on anything?! Tucker needs to own up to his failure to appropriately vet this scumbag that he has by that failure, introduced to his former Fox audience, his current Twitter audience, and thus given him some degree of legitimacy and prestige - plus that Tate's a victim of the PTB. Rooting for justice here.
Assuming the allegations of tattoo branding on Tate’s side is true, it paints a real picture of the predator that pretends to be a spiritual/wise leader to gain power over others.
BHelmet
The Living Force
Would anyone know how long ago that was?
I was unaware of that.
(And FWIW, the very term “man-crush” makes me cringe with disdain every time I hear it.)
Tucker would often feature clips from his Tucker Carlson Today show which would go into greater detail than could be done on his evening show. I absolutely remember him bringing up Andrew Tate - who I had never heard of - on his evening news show although I thought it was more recent than August of last year:
https://nation.foxnews.com/watch/01da73aecf8f3ee7d060a6bfe90d3636/
Andrew Tate - Tucker Carlson Today - Fox Nation
Aug 26, 2022 — Tucker Carlson Today - Andrew Tate: Who is Andrew Tate? Banned by every platform in the world, but not here. Tate explains his worldview and ...
Just to document this, Tucker is no strange to Tate as he already had him on his "Tucker Carlson Today" show on "Fox Nation" a while back.
My introduction to "guy love" i.e. a "bromance" was J.D. and Turk of Scrubs tv sitcom. One episode had a patient who heard all conversation as songs in a musical:
EDIT:
Oh, I have to include this - it was a running joke throughout the whole series of how close J.D. and Turk were:
Last edited:
eightyfour
Padawan Learner
Tucker Carlson interviews Andrew Tate. The question is did the women get forced or did they do it by choice.
It didn’t come across to me as an interview as much as a “coming out” presentation for Tate. Free advertisement and airing of his views. The questions were pitched to Tate, who was without hesitation completely ready with full and often great answers. Today on the thread Tucker Carlson interviews and Ideologies, you can see Tucker much more aggressive and after both sides of the equation.
I don’t think Tucker is stupid, and I don’t think he is above being coerced. Even if it’s just the business of quid pro quo. We’ll never know, but maybe someone wanted Andrew Tate and his message (told his way) presented to the conservative world. And who better then Tucker to do that. (My wild guess...Tate had 95% of the talk time and Tucker had 5% to ask the questions and then say I agree.)
@Scottie wrote: “tomorrow they could be dethroned and suddenly we're living in a right-wing conservative ultra-religious hell-hole.” I for one think that the ideology, emotion, and machinery are already in place for a hard right turn like that, and the majority of the population would cheer the “borg-turned-rightwing” as it goes harshly after the “Leftist baddies” and by the time the lefties are gone and the machinery comes after them it would be too late.
“IF” the antichrist is an egregore, a thought form, or 4D being, any of which that can work through humans ( that is infuses many of them) then I wouldn’t take AT off the list of suspects.
I don’t think Tucker is stupid, and I don’t think he is above being coerced. Even if it’s just the business of quid pro quo. We’ll never know, but maybe someone wanted Andrew Tate and his message (told his way) presented to the conservative world. And who better then Tucker to do that. (My wild guess...Tate had 95% of the talk time and Tucker had 5% to ask the questions and then say I agree.)
@Scottie wrote: “tomorrow they could be dethroned and suddenly we're living in a right-wing conservative ultra-religious hell-hole.” I for one think that the ideology, emotion, and machinery are already in place for a hard right turn like that, and the majority of the population would cheer the “borg-turned-rightwing” as it goes harshly after the “Leftist baddies” and by the time the lefties are gone and the machinery comes after them it would be too late.
“IF” the antichrist is an egregore, a thought form, or 4D being, any of which that can work through humans ( that is infuses many of them) then I wouldn’t take AT off the list of suspects.
Last edited:
Don't know much about Tate other than a handful of videos and reading a few pages about him here. He sure is charismatic and can see why he draws men into his sphere, but Peterson explained the reasons why that might be the case by comparing him to a pimp and violent rapper.
And this fellow uses a Peterson clip to basically call out Tate as being a manipulative psychopath.
And this fellow uses a Peterson clip to basically call out Tate as being a manipulative psychopath.
BHelmet
The Living Force
Thanks. August last year is quite a while for Tucker to figure it out or someone to clue him in.
Below is really minor ticky tack, but….
My beef with the term man crush or bromance for that matter too, (sure there is a light hearted teasing aspect,) but it’s a Johnny come lately insertion into the popular lexicon. A cultural fabrication. It has the emotional attraction connotation which is added baggage that taints the notion of mutual respect. Once again, everything gets sexualized.
Eg: I play guitar. And I love David Gilmour’s playing. I love some of his songs and my soul resonates with the lead on comfortably numb. It’s a masterwork of phrasing, touch and feel and I admire it. But a crush? No way.
That said, this is a small potatoes/devil in the details thing that I do not wish to blow out of proportion (too late!!) although it does fit in with the Tate topic in some strange way.
Below is really minor ticky tack, but….
My beef with the term man crush or bromance for that matter too, (sure there is a light hearted teasing aspect,) but it’s a Johnny come lately insertion into the popular lexicon. A cultural fabrication. It has the emotional attraction connotation which is added baggage that taints the notion of mutual respect. Once again, everything gets sexualized.
Eg: I play guitar. And I love David Gilmour’s playing. I love some of his songs and my soul resonates with the lead on comfortably numb. It’s a masterwork of phrasing, touch and feel and I admire it. But a crush? No way.
That said, this is a small potatoes/devil in the details thing that I do not wish to blow out of proportion (too late!!) although it does fit in with the Tate topic in some strange way.
Years ago (in the mid 70's) I remember my Gurdjieff teacher saying that If men would be real men then women would be real women. Well, that didn't happen.
What happened I think is that the men of my generation (I'm 68) became lazy, out of shape, pathetic, greedy, the hell with the other guy attitude, shallow, love of comfort, sports obsessed, and so on. The women, unconsciously feeling this and feeling unprotected had to assert themselves but since the men remained weak and afraid the women became outwardly more dominate but in the wrong way taking narcissistic revenge over becoming a united moral force to protect their children.
In a normal society the men would back the women and the women would back the men but this has not happened since everything is divided and everyone is fighting each other and the enemy we fight are figments of our imagination.
Collective narcissism, cowardice, fear, greed and sloth has decomposed the collective mind/body of righteous indignation that should be directed to the real source of the problem.
At some point in the very recent past things kind of "turned". I'll call it the great turning and this may be a natural kind of event that has happened many times in the past possibly triggered by Gurdjieff's Solioonensius. Men and women's roles kinda reversed themselves but imo there is a right way and wrong way for this to happen.
The right way for this to happen is for the women to collectively take front and center stage with regard to the expression and direction of moral force while the men back/protect the women and while the women back the men without division.
What happened I think is that the men of my generation (I'm 68) became lazy, out of shape, pathetic, greedy, the hell with the other guy attitude, shallow, love of comfort, sports obsessed, and so on. The women, unconsciously feeling this and feeling unprotected had to assert themselves but since the men remained weak and afraid the women became outwardly more dominate but in the wrong way taking narcissistic revenge over becoming a united moral force to protect their children.
In a normal society the men would back the women and the women would back the men but this has not happened since everything is divided and everyone is fighting each other and the enemy we fight are figments of our imagination.
Collective narcissism, cowardice, fear, greed and sloth has decomposed the collective mind/body of righteous indignation that should be directed to the real source of the problem.
At some point in the very recent past things kind of "turned". I'll call it the great turning and this may be a natural kind of event that has happened many times in the past possibly triggered by Gurdjieff's Solioonensius. Men and women's roles kinda reversed themselves but imo there is a right way and wrong way for this to happen.
The right way for this to happen is for the women to collectively take front and center stage with regard to the expression and direction of moral force while the men back/protect the women and while the women back the men without division.
Last edited:
In order to exemplify the above, what follows is just one example of MANY in just the first hour of the Tucker interview with Tate. At 01:04:55, Tate says the following:
Quote:
Just in that short segment above is so much to unpack that doesn't correspond with his "heroic", "good" and "admirable" leader persona he put on in the Tucker video, but I just focus on the bolded part to make the point. Also notice the many strange word choices and in which context he is using them.
Why would any normal and decent person want to adopt, quote "the mindset that makes me the most capable Predator I can possibly be?"
Is Tate basically revealing his true motivation in live? To become the most capable Predator he can possibly be?
Which decent person would ever set himself goals like the above?
In the first hour that I watched is so much of that stuff coming out of Tate that you could write a book about it. Also, there are instances where he very quickly injects strange words and sayings that just fly by you if you don't pay attention. I have found myself needing to slow down Tates speech at times to catch those instances.
Last edited:
eightyfour
Padawan Learner
He went to prison. A person would learn something from that. Even if half of what he says is true (it seems about that level of truth) its still a lot better that what we get rammed down our throat by our dysfunctional society. Free discussion of ideas means ya have to think about what is said. Separate the humor/ satire, bravado and truth. View accordingly.
BHelmet
The Living Force
Interesting... What country was this? Or perhaps what part of the US?
So, if you are 68 then you'd be born around the mid 50's and in the mid 70's you were just 20. I don't recall things being the way you describe, but I was not all that in touch with my generation, either. The mid 70's were the beginning of the self-help/personal transformation era as well as the disco era (which was indeed pretty shallow and lame). The hippie movement had died out. Then in the late 70's was the stagflation era. wow - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan... (YOWZA!)!And let's not forget women's "lib". So that is the broad context.
It is quite possible that any young man in his 20's looks around and sees hypocrisy, greed and the things you describe and becomes disillusioned. I know that was the case for me. I guess I am suggesting the possibility that what you have described is a function of being a 20 year old young man and looking around at the world and not so much that your entire generation fits the description and is somehow different than any other generation of men.
IOW, what I saw when I was 20 was partially if not entirely a natural focus on the negative traits of others which I used as an excuse for my own faults.
BHelmet
The Living Force
Regarding Scottie's comment on a right wing, take-over pendulum swing: another possible way to frame this is that Tate is being trotted out as a supposed alpha model to trigger the alpha right-wingers to come out from under their rocks with guns blazing so the crack down can occur in earnest. And/Or Tate becomes a poster boy for the right to reinforce the "misogynist, bigot, fascist" can of paint they like to paint the MAGA crowd with. Yeah, far-fetched, but I don't think it would be the first time they tried to egg on the right into an overt fight.
